Adolescence: The Netflix drama that will have every parent talking - Join our watch thread plus Q&A with producer and cast

[CeriMumsnet]

Premieres 13th March 2025

Read Hannah and Christine's answers to your questions here.

If you’re after a gripping new series to get stuck into, Adolescence is set to be the show of the year - and it’s one that will chill parents to the core. This tense British crime drama begins with the shocking arrest of 13-year-old Jamie Miller for the murder of a classmate. But as the investigation unfolds, the series delves into the unsettling realities of modern masculinity, online radicalisation, and the pressures facing today’s teenagers.

Filmed in South Kirby with a raw, unflinching realism, Adolescence isn’t just another crime drama - it’s a conversation starter. If you were lucky enough to catch the Mumsnet exclusive preview, you’ll know just how haunting and thought-provoking it is, with themes that resonate long after you finish watching.

Watch the trailer here:

Q&A
Adolescence Executive Producer Hannah Walters and actress Christine Tremarco who plays Jamie’s Mum will be joining us for a Q&A in the next couple of weeks, so make sure to share your questions about the show for them below.

• Hannah Walters is an actress, producer and co-founder of Matriarch Productions, an entertainment production company who aims to provide a much-needed platform for underrepresented voices and stories in the UK. Their credits include BOILING POINT (2021) and most recent TV series for the BBC. Hannah has two children with her husband Stephen Graham.

• Christine Tremarco is a British actress who along with playing Jamie’s Mum in Adolescence can also currently be seen in Channel 4’s drama series, The Gathering and in the BBC’s Kidnapped: The Chloe Ayling Story, directed by Al Mackay. Other screen credits include the BBC’s Responder opposite Martin Freeman, a series regular in Sky’s Wolfe, and Shane Meadows’ BAFTA winning series The Virtues opposite Stephen Graham.

So, what do we think? Will you be watching? Does the premise resonate with you? Let’s chat below! 👇

The acting of the lad was incredible. The third episode was fantastic.

I really wish more had been said and made about the whole reason he did it. I understood because being a mum of a 13 year old boy, I have looked into and researched the Andrew Tate side of the internet. But there are those, some on this thread who know nothing about it, and in that way, a way to educate was missed. It really did feel glossed over. Id like to ask if this was purposeful, and if so what the reason may be?

I think the school is definitely representative, at least of some schools. I work in HE and see some of the behaviour even in 18+.

Oh I know it’s not easy which is why it has to be a house rule day 1 of getting the phone and until they finish final school exams. Then they can do what they want.

Im a pretty relaxed parent but this is my hard rule

I appreciated the way that it didn't give simple answers. It would have been very easy to say "he did it because he was bullied", or "he did it because he was at a failing school", or "he did it because of his relationship with his dad", or "he did it because of Andrew Tate". All of those were influences but life is messy and complicated. It's going to be a combination of things and not just one.

It really was an amazing piece of writing and performance.

They spelt NONCE wrong.... It's NONCE in the drama the vandalism spray painted on the van is incorrectly spelt NONSE! ☝🏼Just an observation!

I think it was because he felt entitled to her and when she rejected him he was so incensed by it he stalked her and killed her

@Mail1986 I am pretty sure that was intentional.

Yup.

I found the show really gripping and couldn’t stop watching till the end once I started. I hadn’t read the promotional material before watching so had no expectations. One description of the show I found interesting was how it talked about his parents facing ‘every parent’s worst nightmare’, because I thought it was Katie’s parents facing this and not Jamie’s? At least Jamie has a chance at redemption, but Katie is dead.

I thought the show did a good job of highlighting the culture of entitlement that drives this epidemic. Jamie had an entitled attitude which led him to kill, and he masked this very well but the psychologist was able to draw it out of him. However, the subculture of bullying in the school fed into this as well and the boy who pressured Katie into sending the photo was part of the entitled culture. I’m not certain if the murder was premeditated or opportunistic and if Jamie had taken to carrying a weapon as many young people do these days for protection/to make themselves feel stronger, or if he deliberately took it to commit the murder?

I wanted to know more about the knife too - when/why did his friend give it to him?

He said something about thinking Jamie would just use it to frighten her

I’ve been reading into Tate / incel culture since watching and a lot of what that absolute turd says is around how women are possessions and how men should put women in their place through violence and (basically) murder, especially when disrespected. My take is that the boys planned it, perhaps initially just to scare her and Jamie got caught up in the moment

[SPOILERS]

I got the feeling that he didn't necessarily set out to kill her. I think his initial motivation was to scare her as retribution for making him feel small by turning him down. But his anger problems took over. In ep3 he deliberately scared the psychologist and was later gloating about it. It's a power thing.

I haven't read all the posts, so sorry if someone else has said this.

But think it is interesting how much the males were prioritised in the story telling - was that intentional as reflection of the underlying concept of patriarchy / incel culture.

The woman sergeant mentioned how she hated that everyone would remember Jamie's name rather than Katie. And in fact we learned very little about her. The policewoman barely contributed, the psychologist had to put up with the guy in the detention centre looming over her, Jamie only focused on his dad, we never knew what was happening to Jade...

Although I found it powerful, I would have liked to see it from other perspectives too.

I agree that he probably didn't set out to kill her - I think in the video at the end of episode 1, she pushes him over then he gets up and attacks her.

I agree about the creepy guy in the detention centre - ugh. Also, I don't think anybody's mentioned the dodgy guy in the diy place - 'you should start a crowdfunder, lots of us would contribute'. Jesus.

Yes, that bloke in the DIY store was chilling.

The kind of people who would spray paint abuse on someone's van are not likely to be the kind of people who got top marks in English at school.

@Namechange61 As awful as the choice is I would rather my child dead than to murder someone like this, it would be like you had created a monster.

Did anyone else think it was strange how the dad’s anger seemed to rule the house. I get they were all traumatised and it was his birthday but he seemed quite volatile - like Jamie I guess.
And the mum weirdly asking the daughter if her boyfriend was looking after her. The dad and his feelings were very dominant - the daughter constantly apologising etc

Disagree re the school. There are schools like that everywhere. When the policeman said that nobody was learning anything in there that rang very true of many schools. And the number of times the teachers told students to put their phone away also rang very true.

I noticed in the credits that Brad Pitt is one of the producers

Oh gosh, what a dilemma. You'd be losing your child anyway if they were locked up - although not in the same way.

It would be so hard to know that you made the person who did something like this. I can't imagine the sorrow you'd feel.

I think that was deliberate. The man in the detention centre was creepy.

Also the teacher who was showing them around the school was portrayed as trying to be really helpful.

It was interesting how they portrayed each character, even the minor ones.

Ir almost seemed like he thought the fact that Jamie did it was "fake news". You can only imagine the Facebook site that had been created and the comments below.

I watched this because of the hype. I guess I am one of the few not blown away by the acting. Important message but the delivery was lacking for me. I got very bored and stopped half way through episode 4 and have no intention of finishing it. I have also seen Stephen Graham in this role before 'scouser in a fix/bind'.

DH saw a bit with me and agreed it was all heavy handed in the message it was trying to convey, like a punch in the face with little nuance or subtlety. Particularly struggled with episode 3. In all its important as a tool for getting young people talking. With older folks understanding their world. It's also good that an English production is doing well.